Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The Authors are expected to address all the criticisms by all Reviewers. In particular, please provide a clear definition and clarify the ascertainment for primary and secondary infections (Reviewers #1, #2 and #3), clarify how fluid requirement was calculated and provide more explanation for Table 2 results (Reviewer #2), explain and assess the impact of recruitment criteria, further describe and discuss Table 3 results especially hemorrhagic and GI manifestations, and move some of the results from the supplementary to the main text, especially for patients characteristics, (Reviewer #3). In additional to these comments, please address:

1. Copy editing is needed

2. Abstract, “forecast future changes in the clinical or serological profile of this virus”. While I agree that the study may help future planning, the study analysis did not forecast changes and it does not appear to be a clear study purpose. Please strengthen the relevant analysis and discussion, or alternatively remove in the abstract and revise accordingly in the main text,.

3. Tables 1-3. Please use standard symbols for the footnotes

4. Tables 1-3. Please state the meaning of the bolded numbers (p-values and numbers/%)

5. Table 2. Please remove the level of significance in the footnote.

6. Table 1 & 3. Please provide the units directly in the table.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Eric HY Lau, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The Authors are expected to address all the criticisms by all Reviewers. In particular, please provide a clear definition and clarify the ascertainment for primary and secondary infections (Reviewers #1, #2 and #3), clarify how fluid requirement was calculated and provide more explanation for Table 2 results (Reviewer #2), explain and assess the impact of recruitment criteria, further describe and discuss Table 3 results especially hemorrhagic and GI manifestations, and move some of the results from the supplementary to the main text, especially for patients characteristics, (Reviewer #3). In additional to these comments, please address:

1. Copy editing is needed

2. Abstract, “forecast future changes in the clinical or serological profile of this virus”. While I agree that the study may help future planning, the study analysis did not forecast changes and it does not appear to be a clear study purpose. Please strengthen the relevant analysis and discussion, or alternatively remove in the abstract and revise accordingly in the main text,.

3. Tables 1-3. Please use standard symbols for the footnotes

4. Tables 1-3. Please state the meaning of the bolded numbers (p-values and numbers/%)

5. Table 2. Please remove the level of significance in the footnote.

6. Table 1 & 3. Please provide the units directly in the table.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The project titled "Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh" had very clear objectives to describe the clinical and

laboratory variations among severe dengue cases. The authors also conducted a serotype survey to enable them predict future changes in the clinical or serological profile of this virus. The population studied was from a dengue fever outbreak that happened in 2019. The sample size was sufficient. The clinical and laboratory evaluations were appropriate.

Reviewer #2: How were the cases classified as primary or secondary infection.Details not provided.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results were clearly presented and they did match the analysis plan. The quality of the figures are good and clear.

Reviewer #2: in Table 2 fluid requirement was calculated according to what criteria? Also is this requirement per 24 hours?

In types of fluid only 84.9 % and 88% in group B and groub C received fluid and 15 % didnt receive any crystalloid which is the first fluid given in patients with preshock or shock.Kindly explain this.Also 49 patients received platelet transfusion more in group B rather than group C which showed more hemorrhagic menifestations as quoted in table 3.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The authors concluded that emergence of novel strains and co-circulation of several strains are a significant problem in Bangladesh which could predispose to more severity of cases in the future. The limitation of serotyping all samples due to limited resources was mentioned. The public health importance of the study was mentioned.

Reviewer #2: yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: My suggestions are below:

Abstract

1. Sentence: “The study enrolled 1978 participants who were grouped into group B and C according to national guidelines”.

Issue – Define what is meant by group B and C

2. Sentence: “Median (IQR) of the cohort was 26(11 to 41)”

Issue – median of what? Besides, it seems it is a repetition.

3. Sentence: “Only 5.56% were secondary infections”

Issue: Round up 5.56% to one decimal point as precision measurement is not required here.

4. Sentence: “Only 13 (0.66%) patients succumbed to death …..”

Issue: State the number of patients without qualifying as ‘only’ and round up all decimals to one decimal point across the entire manuscript.

5. Sentence: “………. 12 of them belonged to group B.”

Issue: the sentences that follow should describe the characteristics of the group B who had more deaths.

6. Sentence: “Out of 81 samples 79% patients were serotyped as DENV-3, followed by

DENV 2,3 (13.6% ) and DENV-2 (7.4%).”

Issue: Do you mean, ‘Out of 81 samples collected from patients, 79% were …..”? Also, it seems DENV 2 is being reported twice. Please clarify

Methods

Study site and enrollment: It was mentioned that the study was done from 1st July to 31st December, 2019 whereas, in the author summary and abstract sections, study period was reported as August to December 2019? Please harmonize.

Results

Dengue serotyping: “the former two serotypes”. It is advisable to mention the “former serotypes” since not all readers are familiar with the former serotypes.

• Recast this sentence for clarity: “Among the three patterns of identified serotypes majority

(43, 67.2%) of the cases belonged to group B in DENV-3 and DENV-2 and 3 co infection (7, 63.6%).”

Discussion

• It will be helpful to define ‘primary infection’ in the manuscript.

• “ICU transfers and mortality rate was also minimal than other sites [44].” Expatiate on what is meant by ‘other sites’

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The study described the changing clinical presentation of dengue cases which is very relevant for the global community because of the changing dynamics of vector borne diseases particularly in this era of climate change.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Somia Iqtadar

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-23-01524_Reviewer Comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: review report PNTD.docx

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The Authors have addressed the criticisms by the Reviewers. However, there are some remaining issues to be addressed:

1. Methods, Line 147-150 and Discussion Line 416-420. There seems to be some intention to analyze primary infections, and in the discussion “most of the cases in this study was of primary infection as per RDT test reports”. However the relevant results were missing.

2. Please also clarify how primary and secondary infections were analyzed.

3. Table 1. Please use consistent formatting, e.g. “(113) 74.2” should be “113 (74.2)”

4. Line 233, please change “(p=<0.0001)” to “(p<0.0001)”

5. Tables 2, 3 and 4. Most of the outcomes did not have a symmetric distribution and are better presented with median and IQR. Please also update the relevant text accordingly.

6. Table 2, please use consistent decimal places for the percentages

7. Table 2, please change “>0.9999” to “1.000”

8. Table 2, please use the same decimal place (1 dp) for mean and SD.

9. Figure 2, please use 1 decimal place for percentages

10. Line 418, please present the full term of RDT at first appearance, and if the test was used it should be clearly state in the Methods.

11. Discussion, line 353-359. Please confirm if the mean age was younger than the cited studies only, or exceptionally young? In the latter case, are there any reasons explaining the younger cases in this study?

12. Discussion, if the study population is younger than usual, the impact of a different age distribution should be accessed more carefully when comparing with previous studies (Line 365-378). The authors may consider supplementary analyses stratified by age.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Eric HY Lau, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The Authors have addressed the criticisms by the Reviewers. However, there are some remaining issues to be addressed:

1. Methods, Line 147-150 and Discussion Line 416-420. There seems to be some intention to analyze primary infections, and in the discussion “most of the cases in this study was of primary infection as per RDT test reports”. However the relevant results were missing.

2. Please also clarify how primary and secondary infections were analyzed.

3. Table 1. Please use consistent formatting, e.g. “(113) 74.2” should be “113 (74.2)”

4. Line 233, please change “(p=<0.0001)” to “(p<0.0001)”

5. Tables 2, 3 and 4. Most of the outcomes did not have a symmetric distribution and are better presented with median and IQR. Please also update the relevant text accordingly.

6. Table 2, please use consistent decimal places for the percentages

7. Table 2, please change “>0.9999” to “1.000”

8. Table 2, please use the same decimal place (1 dp) for mean and SD.

9. Figure 2, please use 1 decimal place for percentages

10. Line 418, please present the full term of RDT at first appearance, and if the test was used it should be clearly state in the Methods.

11. Discussion, line 353-359. Please confirm if the mean age was younger than the cited studies only, or exceptionally young? In the latter case, are there any reasons explaining the younger cases in this study?

12. Discussion, if the study population is younger than usual, the impact of a different age distribution should be accessed more carefully when comparing with previous studies (Line 365-378). The authors may consider supplementary analyses stratified by age.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #2: objectives of the study are clearly elaborated ,with appropriate study design .sample size is sufficient and correct statistical nalysis has been applied .There are no concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #2: analyses matches the plan with clearly menioned results in the form of tables and elaborated in the manuscript as well.Figures and tables quality is good.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #2: data supports tyhe conclusion and results are discussed in detail with refrences and comparison from previous studies of this region making them relevant to address public health .

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #2: No further changes required.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #2: Its a really useful study with strong data.My only concern is use of RDT for diagnosis.In a setup where they are doing molecular characterization and serotyping absence of ELISA testing remains questionable.Authors have quoted this limitation themselves in the manuscript though.

This study provides them to delve deeper into research related to serospecific presentation of dengue cases and presence of severe disease and DHF in primary infection and ADE hypothesis for plasma leakage .

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Somia Iqtadar

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Faiz Ahmed Raza

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The Authors have addressed most of the comments. However, there are some remaining minor issues around presentation of statistics to be addressed:

1. Line 106, please correct the number “1,01,358”

2. Tables 2, 3 and 4 have now presented median and a number related to IQR, which is an improvement. As point out by a reviewer in the previous round of review, IQR should be a range. This was well presented for age (IQR = 11-41) in Table 1, but not for other variables.

3. Tables 2, 3 and 4, please change “(median± IQR)” to “(median, IQR)”. As an example from Table 1, the statistics for age can be presented as “26, 11- 41”

4. Table 2, please use 1 decimal place consistently for the percentages for all variables

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Eric HY Lau, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The Authors have addressed most of the comments. However, there are some remaining minor issues around presentation of statistics to be addressed:

1. Line 106, please correct the number “1,01,358”

2. Tables 2, 3 and 4 have now presented median and a number related to IQR, which is an improvement. As point out by a reviewer in the previous round of review, IQR should be a range. This was well presented for age (IQR = 11-41) in Table 1, but not for other variables.

3. Tables 2, 3 and 4, please change “(median± IQR)” to “(median, IQR)”. As an example from Table 1, the statistics for age can be presented as “26, 11- 41”

4. Table 2, please use 1 decimal place consistently for the percentages for all variables

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

The Authors have addressed some of the comments. However, there are still a few remaining minor issues that to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for acceptance:

1. Line 106, please correct the number “1,01,354”. Was that 1 million or 100 thousand?

2. Table 2, please correct the numbers “20, 0” for the pulse pressure of Group C

3. Table 3, please add a comma in “50001900- 8100”

4. Table 3, please correct the negative values (e.g. N:L ratio, AST and others)

4. Tables 3 and 4, please harmonize the decimal places for the numbers presented

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Eric HY Lau, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

The Authors have addressed some of the comments. However, there are still a few remaining minor issues to be addressed:

1. Line 106, please correct the number “1,01,354”. Was that 1 million or 100 thousand?

2. Table 2, please correct the numbers “20, 0” for the pulse pressure of Group C

3. Table 3, please add a comma in “50001900- 8100”

4. Table 3, please correct the negative values (e.g. N:L ratio, AST and others)

4. Tables 3 and 4, please harmonize the decimal places for the numbers presented

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Clinical and laboratory comparison of severe (Group B and C) Dengue cases with molecular characterization from 2019 epidemics in Dhaka, Bangladesh' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Eric HY Lau, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Andrea Marzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

***********************************************************